DR. L.L. BUNDILA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner a member of K.C.M.S. II was a candidate for admission to the Post Graduate Course at Medical College, Rohtak. He sought a 'No Objection Certificate' from the Government for admission against one of the reserved seats. It was declined to him on the ground that the petitioner had not completed the requisite period of three years' rural service in March, 1987 and that he has not rendered five years regular service in H.C.M.S. II. As a result the petitioner was admitted against one of the seats in the general category. He was treated on extra-ordinary leave and not as an in-service candidate. The petitioner has since completed the course.

(2.) The action of the respondents in declining the 'No Objection Certificate' and in treating the petitioner as on extra-ordinary leave has been challenged in this petition.

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the respondents, I find that the ground on which the 'No Objection Certificate was declined to the petitioner cannot be sustained. A perusal of the entries in the service book, which have been reproduced in the certificate dated May 20,1989, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P-4 with the replication, shows that the petitioner had rendered rural service for a period of three years 2 months and 20 days upto February 16,1987. Accordingly, the objection that he had not completed three years' rural service is apparently untenable. As regards the seemed objection, it deserves to be noticed that the petitioner had joined service orrSeptember 30,1980. This appointment was on ad hoc basis. His services were regularised on September 11, 1982. Consequently, in the year 1987 when the petitioner had sought the requisite certificate, he was a regular member of H.C.M.S. II and had completed more than six years of service. The expression regular service has been considered and interpreted by Hon'ble Mr, Justice M.M. Punchhi in his judgment dated February 24,1987 in CWP No. 201 of 1987. This contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that the case is squarely covered by that judgment is not disputed.